This sure explains a lot. The New York Times recently had an investigative piece regarding the Brookings Institute, and a number of other think tanks (hey,I am surprised as any that the Times is actually doing investigative reporting these days, but at least in this instance, it is true).

This report is a doozy. It is a very long, comprehensive piece, and touches on a number of issues as they enumerate their discoveries. And just what was it they discovered? The headline says it a lot: Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks.

A report by the New York Times exposes Qatar’s influence on Martin Indyk, US representative to the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, who is highly critical of Israel.

Martin Indyk, former US representative to the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, has been highly critical of Israel, blaming the Jewish state for the failure of the talks. A report published on Sunday by The New York Times sheds light on Indyk’s dubious impartiality as a broker.

Indyk, who has served in the past as Special US Envoy to the Middle East, has been accused on several occasions of being biased towards the Palestinians. The NY Times revealed that Qatar is a major contributor to the Brookings Institution, Indyk’s employer. This funding can heavily influence the institute’s research and stance on crucial diplomatic issues.

Qatar, one of the richest countries in the Middle East, is the largest foreign donor to Brookings, according to the report; in 2013, Qatar promised a $14.8-million donation over the course of four years.

Holy smokes. That is damning indeed, is it not? And let’s just be clear on Qatar, and why this matters:

[…] “Qatar has been a major bankroller for Hamas and other terrorist organizations,” a government official told the Jerusalem Post. “The fact that the same Qatari government is also a major provider of funds for a respectable Washington think tank raises a whole series of questions about that think tank’s relationships and impartiality.”

Brookings is supposedly an objective research body. This report now casts doubt on its objectivity and accuracy.

Numerous US State Department dispatches emphasize that the US Administration clearly knows of Qatar’s involvement in funding terror. Israeli Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor said in August that Qatar is “a Club Med for terrorists,” adding that the hundreds of millions of dollars Qatar had given Hamas meant that “every one of Hamas’s tunnels and rockets might as well have had a sign that said, ‘Made possible through a kind donation of the emir of Qatar.’”

And that is the major bombshell: Qatar is a big time supporter of terrorism, from the Muslim Brotherhood to Hamas. Yet, they are donating tons of money to US Think Tanks like Brookings whose studies influence US policies in a big way:

[…] According to the NYT report, “more than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donors’ priorities.” The report lists nine Middle Eastern countries that contribute funds to nine major think tanks, such as Brookings, the Atlantic Council, the Center for Global Development, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Middle East Institute and the German Marshall Fund of the US. Israel is not on the list of donors. […] (Click here to read the rest.)

To say this is troubling is putting it mildly.

To be clear, this isn’t just bias on the part of United With Israel. Following is the conclusion of the NY Times report, and the impact on the scholars employed in these think tanks, Brookings in particular:

[…] Scholars at other Washington think tanks, who were granted anonymity to detail confidential internal discussions, described similar experiences that had a chilling effect on their research and ability to make public statements that might offend current or future foreign sponsors. At Brookings, for example, a donor with apparent ties to the Turkish government suspended its support after a scholar there made critical statements about the country, sending a message, one scholar there said.

“It is the self-censorship that really affects us over time,” the scholar said. “But the fund-raising environment is very difficult at the moment, and Brookings keeps growing and it has to support itself.”

The sensitivities are especially important when it comes to the Qatari government — the single biggest foreign donor to Brookings.

Brookings executives cited strict internal policies that they said ensure their scholars’ work is “not influenced by the views of our funders,” in Qatar or in Washington. They also pointed to several reports published at the Brookings Doha Center in recent years that, for example, questioned the Qatari government’s efforts to revamp its education system or criticized the role it has played in supporting militants in Syria.

But in 2012, when a revised agreement was signed between Brookings and the Qatari government, the Qatar Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself praised the agreement on its website, announcing that “the center will assume its role in reflecting the bright image of Qatar in the international media, especially the American ones.” Brookings officials also acknowledged that they have regular meetings with Qatari government officials about the center’s activities and budget, and that the former Qatar prime minister sits on the center’s advisory board.

Mr. Ali, who served as one of the first visiting fellows at the Brookings Doha Center after it opened in 2009, said such a policy, though unwritten, was clear.

“There was a no-go zone when it came to criticizing the Qatari government,” said Mr. Ali, who is now a professor at the University of Queensland in Australia. “It was unsettling for the academics there. But it was the price we had to pay.” (Click here to read the rest of this explosive expose.

Stunning, just stunning, and especially so when we are waiting with not-so-baited breath for President Obama to speak to the nation regarding decisions he has (not) made regarding ISIS/ISIL, and what the country will do. Not to mention Obama wanting Congress to show HIM the money for all the things he won’t do on terrorism.

Bottom line, when you have these kinds of revelations of those who influence our policies and decisions, it is disconcerting at best.

As I was watching the clip of Chuck Todd’s interview with Obama concerning the “junior varsity statement” about ISIS, which Obama denied having made, I couldn’t help wonder why Todd didn’t have a Candy Crowley moment and pull out a transcript of the actual exchange. But of course not. Chuck Todd, like all the other media sycophants, wouldn’t want to catch Obama in a lie. He’d never get another interview with the president and we all know that is THE most important thing to these repulsive ego maniacs.

I’m still in shock over the fact that the NYT actually did a decent job on an investigative piece. I didn’t think they had it in them. And excuse my cynicism but I don’t expect it to happen often. Or maybe even again.

Right?? I couldn’t believe this VERY lengthy report came from the Times. I reckon now they can rest on their laurels and not worry abt doing any other in depth reporting. That way, they can go back to praising everything Obama and the Dems do since they can point back to this one report…

It really does answer a lot of questions, doesn’t it? Of course, Qatar isn’t the only nation that is pumping money into these think tanks, but that it is a supporter of a number of terrorist organizations, that (formerly) respectable organizations are capitulating to speaks volumes…

If you are somewhat confused by the Dems whining about what the GOP is doing in the Senate, Guy Benson explains it fairly well in this piece. Seems the Demwits are being hoist with their own petard and don’t like it much. What a bunch of whiny jackasses.

OHMYGOSH – that is hilarious!!! I love the logo, but I also love that the Reps are finally playing the game. Good for them for stepping up and saying, “okay – let’s have that debate on abolishing the First Amendment. Go ahead – make your case, right before an election, that we need to do away with the First Amendment. I dare ya.” Love it!

I was reading about this earlier and couldn’t help but think how this not only shows the corruption in the Holder DOJ but in the office of Elijah Cummings.

It’s not as if any of us actually thought the DOJ has anything to do with justice any more, it’s just that they are so obvious about it.

When the DOJ is nothing more than a political arm of the White House, any White House left or right, there is no justice in this country and we are no longer a nation of laws. But we know that too – after all our “leaders” ignore any laws they don’t like or find convenient.

I would like to think that if a man like Trey Gowdy was Attorney General his love of and respect for the law would make him all about the law and NOT about politics. For that reason I doubt any President would appoint him. They want people who are flexible about the law and ethics – he isn’t a good fit for them. But he would be, IMO, a great fit for the country!

Does no one else see this as racist? Even the color of your skin makes should be considered when hiring teachers? I thought the civil rights act was all about stopping that kind of behavior. Or wait, my bad, racism against white people is just fine cause we have it coming because blacks have “suffered” for so long. The insanity continues.

Best news I’ve seen in some time. Even Stuart Rothenberg is predicting that the GOP will take the Senate. Now all it takes is for the GOP to keep from stepping in it for a couple of months. I read somewhere that that is their strategy. Good idea – just duct tape some mouths shut. And let Harry Reid keep up his insane rants and all will be well.

That is if once they get in power the right has the brains and common-sense, this time, to do the best they can for the country – not just for their party. Sigh, but they are politicians after all.